GM ShallowFoundations A11y

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual
Shallow Foundations for Bridges
This module presents the design methods, examples (Appendices 1 and 2), and
communication steps between Structure Design (SD) and Geotechnical Services (GS)
for the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) of shallow footing foundations for
bridges. It may aid in the design of shallow foundations for retaining walls, non-standard
walls, and other structures, however many design aspects for those other structures are
not adequately addressed.
Upon receipt of a foundation design request from SD, the Geoprofessional must review
the request and verify that the information is sufficient to allow the design process to
begin.
Design of a spread footing is an iterative process between the Structure Designer and the
Geoprofessional. Some of the communication and data exchanges are specific to
Caltrans and may not be applicable to consultant work. The process presented in this
module begins after adequate subsurface site data has been obtained and a shallow
foundation has been type selected.
The reference standards for shallow foundation investigations, design, and reporting are:
• Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC)
• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with CA Amendments (AASHTO)
• Bridge Memos to Designers (MTD) 4-1, Spread Footings
• Caltrans Geotechnical Manual
o Foundation Reports for Bridges
o Geotechnical Investigations
Geotechnical Services provides the Structure Designer with a foundation report

addressing:
• Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn): The vertical footing stress, that produces a
permissible settlement under the Service Limit State (resistance factor, ϕ=1).
• Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn): The soil’s ability to resist a uniform
bearing stress (or a maximum bearing stress for rock) that will cause a bearing
capacity failure.
• Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qR): This is determined by
multiplying the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance by a resistance factor, qR = φb
· qn. The qR uses a resistance factor, ϕ, which varies for the Strength and/or
Construction Limit State, or uses resistance factor, ϕ=1, for the Extreme Event
Limit State.
• The recommended internal friction angle (drained), or the undrained shear strength
at the bottom of footing elevation for cohesionless or cohesive soil respectively.
SD inputs these values into the CT Abut/WinFoot computer programs for sliding
analysis.
Page 1 of 34 February 2021

• The bearing stress distribution between the footing and the soil/rock. In soil, the
bearing stress is based on a uniform stress distribution applied to the effective
footing area. In rock, the bearing stress is based on a triangular or trapezoidal
stress distribution, as appropriate, on the footing area.
• Global stability analysis for Service-I Limit State and Extreme Event Limit State for
a footing on or near sloping ground.
• The stiffness matrix for dynamic response analyses (per GEC Circular No. 3), if
requested.
• That the footing size selected by the Structure Designer is adequate.
The Structure Designer will:

• Provide Foundation Footing Design and Load Information to GS (per MTD 4-1)
• Check Eccentricity
• Check Overturning Stability
• Check Sliding Stability
For further information on the Structure Designer’s role, refer to Bridge Design Practice
(BDP), Chapter 15.
Investigations
The geotechnical investigation for a shallow foundation should identify the properties and
behaviors of soil and/or rock, the groundwater conditions, and other subsurface
conditions that might affect the foundation design and performance.
The Geoprofessional must first review existing information related to site geology,
strength of soil and rock, groundwater, and geologic hazards. Refer to Geotechnical
Investigations for direction on performing a literature (data) search.
If the literature search does not provide all required information, the Geoprofessional must
develop an exploration plan based on site constraints, geologic variability, and available
resources. Locate borings as close as possible to the foundations.
The exploration plan should include:

• An appropriate number of exploratory borings and/or cone penetration tests (CPT)
to develop the design soil profile (AASHTO Table 10.4.2-1).
• An appropriate depth for the borings or CPT. The depth of the explorations should
generally extend below the foundation to:
o 4 times the estimated footing width below the proposed bottom of footing
o a depth where material strength and strain characteristics are acceptable
(e.g. very dense or hard soil).
o to the full depth of soft, loose, and/or weak soils upon which stability,
bearing resistance, and settlement is dependent.

• Standard penetration tests (SPT) with sampling intervals no greater than 5 feet.
Closer intervals of SPT testing should be considered within a depth of 2 times the
footing width below the bottom of footing.
• Groundwater measurements.
• Soil and water samples for corrosion testing in accordance with Caltrans Corrosion
Guidelines.
• Adequate samples for laboratory testing such as particle analysis tests, Atterberg
limit tests, consolidation tests, direct shear tests, and/or triaxial tests, for soil below
the bottom of footing within a depth of 4 times the estimated footing width.
o For cohesionless materials, any remolded samples that will be tested in the
laboratory should have characteristics similar to the field conditions.
o For cohesive soils, consolidation testing may be necessary where
settlement magnitude and rate are significant project considerations.
Design
The following design methodologies are used for calculating settlement (Service-I Limit
State).
• Use a resistance factor (ϕ) of 1.0.
• Calculate the settlement of cohesionless soils using the Hough method and SPT
data (AASHTO 10.6.2.4.2).
• Calculate the settlement of cohesive soils using AASHTO (10.6.2.4.3).
• Calculate settlement on rock using AASHTO (10.6.2.4.4).
• For foundations on sloping ground, make appropriate reductions in overburden
stresses (see design example in the appendix).
In cases where unacceptable settlements are predicted, or low bearing resistance results
from the presence of near-surface loose, soft, or non-uniform materials, consider
removing the inadequate material and replacing it with structure backfill or lean concrete.
Differential settlement between supports must be evaluated and discussed with the SD.
Typically, multi-span structures, and single span structures with end-diaphragm
abutments can tolerate no more than ½ inch of differential settlement between adjacent
supports. Typically, single span structures with seat abutments can tolerate no more than
2 inches of differential settlement. For multi-column bent supports differential settlement
should be evaluated and discussed with the SD when subsurface conditions show
variable soil/rock compressibility across a bent support. Differential settlement should be
evaluated for soil foundations by calculating the settlement at each support location using
the applied net uniform bearing stress.
The following design methodologies are used for calculating bearing resistance (Strength
and Extreme Event Limit States) in accordance with AASHTO.

• For bearing resistance calculations use a resistance factor of 0.45 to 0.55 for the
strength limit state, and 1.0 for the extreme event limit state.
• Calculate the bearing resistance of soil using the bearing capacity equation
(AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2). Use the appropriate bearing capacity equation when there
are sloping ground conditions (AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2c). These methods may also
be used for design in weak rock that behaves like a very dense or hard soil.
• Calculate bearing resistance on rock using AASHTO 10.6.3.2.
The soil properties used in design should come from: (1) SPT correlations (see Soil
Correlations Module), and/or (2) results from laboratory tests.
Shallow foundations founded on rock must be designed using procedures developed

specifically for the characteristics of rock masses. Foundation engineering on rock differs
from foundation engineering on soil in several respects:
• Applied stress distribution pattern is trapezoidal or triangular.
• Nominal bearing resistance and settlement are calculated using the physical
footing width, B.
• Rock foundation conditions must be evaluated for both intact rock properties
(unconfined compressive strength) and rock mass properties (discontinuity
spacing(s), orientation(s), aperture(s), and condition(s)).
• Engineering calculation procedures for rock foundations are tailored to the rock
foundation conditions.
• Acceptance of the foundation configuration is performed by comparing the gross
maximum bearing stress to the gross nominal bearing resistance.
The design must also account for geologic hazards such as:
• Earthquakes: Guidance for use of shallow foundations at abutments related to
structure type and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is in MTD 5-1, Table 1.
• Liquefaction (see Liquefaction Evaluation module)
• Lateral spreading (see Lateral Spreading module)
• Scour: Shallow foundations are permissible in a watercourse if the top of footing
is below the total scour elevation.
Bridge widenings pose a challenge because it is likely that the existing structure was
designed using different methodologies. Caltrans designs the foundation for the widening
as if it were a separate structure, regardless of the reality that the superstructure and
substructure will be connected to the existing structure. Ask SD for the allowable
differential settlement between the existing and new foundations.

Design Information and Communication
Shallow foundation design requires an iterative process that begins when Structure
Design sends a request to Geotechnical Services including:
• General Plan
• Foundation Plan
• Foundation Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 1, Table 1)
• Scour Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 1, Table 2)
Foundation Data
(MTD 4-1, Attachment 1, Table 1)
Bottom Estimated Footing
Finished Dimensions Permissible Approximate
of
Grade (feet) Settlement Under Ratio of
Support No. Footing
Elevation Service-I Load Permanent/Total
Elevation Estimated Footing Dimensions (feet),
(feet) (inches) Service-I Load*

Estimated Footing Dimensions (feet), L
B
(feet) B L
Abut 1 214.0 206.0 16 72 1 0.87
Bent 2 199.0 192.0 18 18 1 0.85
Abut 3 214.0 206.0 16 72 1 0.87

*For calculating consolidation settlement of spread footing founded on cohesive soils.
Design Process
Step 1: Initial Evaluation of Shallow Foundation

• Verify that the proposed bottom of footing elevation is appropriate. If, for example,
the requested bottom of footing elevation is in a layer of unsuitable material (e.g.,
loose sand), inform the Structure Designer and provide a revised bottom of footing
elevation or discuss options for improving the bearing layer by removing unsuitable
soils and replacing with engineered fill or lean concrete.
• Verify that the shallow foundation is acceptable considering known geological
hazards (e.g., faulting, scour).
Step 2: Calculate the Permissible Net Contact Stress (Service Limit State)
Calculate the Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn) that produces the permissible
settlement (usually 1” or 2”) for the footing dimensions provided by the Structure Designer
in the Foundation Data table, and footing dimensions with varying length to width (L/B)
ratios as shown in MTD 4-1, Attachment 2. This is an indirect calculation that produces
a permissible settlement for an initial guess at the net contact stress. Further guesses
are used until the chosen net contact stress produces the required permissible settlement.

The footing dimensions provided in these tables are labeled as “Effective” with an
assumed eccentricity of zero (i.e., L=L’ and B=B’) because the support loads are unknown
at this stage of the design process. The Structure Designer will use the data as input for
the software that calculates the structural loads and the effective footing sizes. The
Permissible Net Contact Stress results are presented differently for abutment and bent
supports:
• For abutment design determine the Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn) for one
effective footing length (fixed by the bridge dimensions) and at least five effective
footing widths. Determine the range of effective footing widths and physical
constraints with the Structure Designer. Present the agreed upon footing size
range results in the End Supports (Abutments) table (after MTD 4-1 Attachment 2,
Table 1).
• For bent design determine the permissible net contact stress (qpn) for at least five
effective footing widths and five L’/B’ ratios. Determine the desired range of L’/B’
ratios and physical constraints (e.g. maximum widths) with the Structure Designer.
Present the effective footing widths and L’/B’ ratio range results in the Intermediate
Supports (Bents and Piers) table (after MTD 4-1 Attachment 2, Table 2).
Step 3: Calculate the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance

Calculate the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn) for the effective footing sizes in the
End Supports (Abutments) table and the Intermediate Supports (Bents and Piers) table.
As discussed in step 2, the effective footing widths have an assumed eccentricity of zero
at this stage of the design process (i.e., L=L’ and B=B’). Enter the results in the
appropriate columns of each table.
Step 4: Calculate the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (Strength Limit State)
Calculate the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qR) for the effective footing
sizes in the End Supports (Abutments) table and the Intermediate Supports (Bents and
Piers) table. Enter the results in the appropriate columns of each table.
Step 5: Send Preliminary Design Data to Structure Design

Email the completed tables to the Structure Designer:
• End Supports (Abutments) table (MTD 4-1 Attachment 2, Table 1)
• Intermediate Supports (Bents and Piers) table (MTD 4-1 Attachment 2, Table 2)
See Appendix 1 and 2 for examples of these tables.
Step 6: Request Design Data from Structure Design

Request that SD provide the following tables with the appropriate load information:
• Foundation Data (MTD 4-1 Attachment 4, Table 1)
• Scour Data (MTD 4-1 Attachment 4, Table 2), if applicable

• LRFD Service-I Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination (MTD 4-1
Attachment 4, Table 3)
• LRFD Strength/Construction and Extreme Event Loads for Controlling Load
Combinations (MTD 4-1 Attachment 4, Table 4)
The Structure Designer will use the information from the End Supports (Abutments) and
the Intermediate Supports (Bents and Piers) tables to design the footings using the
CTAbut and WinFoot programs, and will return the design details (dimensions, elevations,
loads, and moments). If the range of footing sizes and resistances supplied by GS in
Step 5 are not acceptable, the Structure Designer will request the entire procedure begin
again with a new preliminary footing size.
Step 7: Evaluate Inclination Factors (if omitted, then go to Step 8)

After receiving the tables from Step 6, calculate the settlement and bearing capacity to
verify the footing design and calculate inclination factors to determine if the gross nominal
bearing resistance is affected. In general, inclination factors should be omitted when
calculating the gross nominal bearing resistance (AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2a-1), however there
are some cases when it may be necessary to consider these factors.
Unusual column geometry or loading configurations may require consideration be given

to evaluating load inclination factors. A column that is not aligned normal to the footing
bearing surface would be one example where inclination factors would be given
consideration.
In the rare case where inclination factors are to be evaluated, use the lower value of the
bearing resistance using either inclination factors or shape factors. Applying both shape
and inclination factors will result in overly conservative design. If the inclination factor
produces a lower bearing resistance than the shape factor, the nominal bearing
resistances determined in Steps 3 and 4 must be recalculated using the inclination factors
in place of the shape factors and provided to the Structure Designer.
Step 8: Verify the Shallow Foundation Design

Use the updated information (MTD 4-1, Attachment 4) to calculate the eccentricities and
determine the effective footing dimensions. Check the footing design for all limit states:
• For the Service Limit State, verify that the Permissible Net Contact Stress is greater
than or equal to the Net Uniform Bearing Stress (soil) or Net Maximum Bearing
Stress (rock).
• For soil foundations, verify if the differential settlement between adjacent supports,
using the Net Uniform Bearing Stresses, is acceptable.
• For the Strength and Extreme Event Limit States, verify that the calculated
Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance is greater than or equal to the Gross
Uniform Bearing Stress (soil) and Gross Maximum Bearing Stress (rock).
If any of the above criteria are not met, inform the Structure Designer.

Step 9: Global Stability Check

The calculated resistance factors for global stability must be less than or equal to the
AASHTO LRFD criteria for both the Service-I (static) Limit State (φ = 0.65), as well as the
Extreme Event (pseudo-static) Limit State (φ = 0.9). If the stability analysis resistance
factors are greater than the resistance factors listed in AASHTO 10.5.2.3 and 11.6.2.3,
inform the Structure Designer and discuss design alternatives or site improvements to
address the issue.
Step 10: Reporting

Report foundation recommendations as required by the Foundation Reports for Bridges
module.

Appendix 1: Shallow Foundation Design Example (Bridge Abutment)
A spread footing is to be designed for an abutment on a soil slope. The Geoprofessional

has received the foundation report request memorandum, the Foundation Data Table, the
General Plan, the Foundation Plan, and has completed the field investigation.
Foundation Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 1)

Finished Bottom of Estimated Footing Permissible
Grade Footing Dimensions (ft) Settlement under
Support No.
Elevation Elevation Estimated Footing Dimensions (ft),
B
Estimated Footing Dimensions (ft),
L Service-I Load
(feet) (feet) B L (inches)
Abut 1 5 0 10 64 1.0
Abut 2 5 0 10 64 1.0
Information from Site Investigation:
• Soil Identification: Silty Sand (SM) with Gravel; well-graded sand; some silt; little
fine gravel.
• Apparent Density: Dense and very dense based on Standard Penetration Test
(SPT).
• Groundwater Elevation = -100 ft.

The site investigation shows the footing location is acceptable. There are no known
geologic hazards that would preclude the use of shallow foundations.
settlement of 1 inch for the footing dimensions provided by the Structure Designer in the
Foundation Data table, as well as for a range of other footing widths.
The Hough formula (shown below) is used to calculate settlement as the cohesionless
soil is loaded from the proposed footing. The apparent density of the soil varies with
depth, therefore multiple layers are used to calculate the total settlement.

where:
Se = total elastic settlement
n = number of soil layers within zone of stress influence of the footing
∆Hi = elastic settlement of layer i
Hc = initial thickness of layer i (maximum 10 ft per AASHTO C10.6.2.4.2)
C’ = bearing capacity index (from AASHTO Figure 10.6.2.4.2-1)
σ’o = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint of layer i
∆σ’v = increase in effective vertical stress at midpoint of layer i
Bearing Capacity Index

(per AASHTO, Figure 10.6.2.4.2-1)
• N1 shall be taken as N160 (SPT blow

count corrected for both overburden
and hammer efficiency).

To calculate the permissible settlement of 1 inch, first pick a depth of influence based on
the footing dimensions and soil types. Here, the depth of influence is assumed to be
three times the footing width (3B = 30 feet). Situations in which the depth of influence
should be greater are when the incremental rate of settlement has not tapered off or
reduced in the soil layers near a depth of 3B (e.g., if the lowest layer contributed less than
5% of the total settlement, contributions for deeper layers can be considered insignificant
assuming demonstrably more compressible soils do not exist below).
The increase in effective vertical stress (∆σ’v) is determined by projecting an equivalent

footing area at the midpoint of each layer assuming a 1:2 (H:V) pressure distribution that
extends down from the bottom of the footing (Figure 1). At this stage, the footing
dimension is assumed to have an eccentricity of zero (B=B’ and L=L’). Eccentricity effects
are considered in Step 8.
The pressure distribution used to determine the total settlement is shown below. To
calculate the initial effective overburden pressure, use the finished grade above the toe
of footing as the original ground elevation (elev. +5 ft in the example shown Figure 1).
The applied load is the load at which the cumulative settlement = 1.0 inch. In this
example, a 4032-kip load produced 1 inch of settlement for an effective footing width of
10 feet (Table 1).
Figure 1: Elevation View Showing Pressure Distribution Used for Estimating Settlement
Assume isolated footing with no abutment backwall

(Moment = 0 therefore eccentricity = 0 B=B’ & L=L’

Table 1: Calculating Settlement using the Hough Method

(Footing Size, B x L = 10 feet x 64 feet)
(Applied Load = 4032 kips)
Projected
Effective Equivalent Footing Increase in
Effective Estimated
Bottom of Layer Depth Below Overburden Depth to SPT Corrected Effective
Layer No. Layer Thickness Footing Unit Wt. Pressure at mid-layer Blow Count
Bearing Area at Mid-Layer
2 Vertical Stress σ'o+∆σ'v Layer Sett. Cumulative
Capacity Index (ft ) (in) Settlement Se (in)
Elevation (ft) Hi (ft) (ft) γ’ (pcf) Mid-Layer (ft) N160
C’
at Mid-Layer σ'o
σ’o (ksf) Δσ'v (ksf)
A 0.0 5.0 0.0 125 - - - - - - - - -
1 -5.0 5.0 5.0 120 0.93 2.5 32 110 831 4.9 6.24 .43 .43
2 -10.0 5.0 10.0 120 1.53 7.5 34 115 1251 3.2 3.11 .27 .70
3 -15.0 5.0 15.0 120 2.13 12.5 38 125 1721 2.3 2.10 .15 .85
4 -20.0 5.0 20.0 120 2.73 17.5 42 140 2241 1.8 1.66 .09 .94
5 -25.0 5.0 25.0 125 3.34 22.5 68 250 2811 1.4 1.43 .04 .98
6 -30.0 5.0 30.0 125 3.96 27.5 68 250 3431 1.2 1.30 .03 1.00
The Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn) is:
qpn = Load (to induce 1” settlement) / Effective Footing Area = 4032 k / (10 ft * 64 ft) = 6.3 ksf
Step 3: Calculate Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn)

Since the abutment footing is on a slope the “Nγ” term must be replaced with Nγq, and Nq
= 0, per AASHTO, Sec. 10.6.3.1.2c.
For cohesionless soils: qn = 0.5 * γ * B’ * Nγq * sγ * Cwγ
where:
γ = total unit weight of soil
B’= effective footing width
Nγq = modified bearing capacity factor for footing on/near a slope
sγ = footing shape correction factor
Cwγ = correction factor to account for the location of the groundwater table

Calculations:
Nγq = 32.5 (AASHTO figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2)
sγ = 1 - 0.4(B’ / L’) = 1 – 0.4(10/64) = 0.94 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
Cwγ =1.0 (depth to groundwater is 100 ft) (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-2)
qn = 0.5 * 120 pcf * 10 ft * 32.5 * 0.94 * 1.0 = 18.3 ksf
Modified Bearing Capacity Factor Nγq for Cohesionless Soil
AASHTO Figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2
Df /B’ = 5 ft /10 ft = 0.5 (Df is the depth of footing from finish grade)
Use the top figure to interpolate for Df /B’ = 0.5 and φf =34o
Inclination of Slope = 26.5o

Df/B’ Inclination of Slope = 26.5o,
Inclination of Slope = 26.5o, Inclination of Slope = 26.5o,
Nγq -φf-30 Nγq-φf-34 Nγq -φf-40

0 5.0 11.6 21.6
0.50 32.5
1 27.9 53.4 92.0
Use the top figure to find Nγq -φf-30 & Nγq -φf-40 for Df /B’=0 (5.0, 21.6)
Use the top figure to find Nγq -φf-30 & Nγq -φf-40 for Df /B’=1 (27.9, 92.0)
Nγq Interpolation:
Step 1:
Interpolate for Nγq -φf-34 for Df /B’=0
Interpolate between 5.0 and 21.6 to get Nγq -φf-34=11.6
Step 2:
Interpolate for Nγq -φf-34 for Df /B’=1
Interpolate between 27.9 and 92.0 to get Nγq -φf-34=53.4
Step 3:
Interpolate for Nγq -φf-34 for Df /B’=0.5
Interpolate between 11.6 and 53.4 to get
Nγq -φf-34 = 32.5 for Df /B’=0.5

Shape Factors (after AASHTO LRFD 10.6.3.1.2a)
Friction Cohesion Term Surcharge Term

Factor Unit Weight Term (sγ)
Angle (sc) (sq)
B'
φf = 0 1 +( ) 1.00 1.00
5L'
Shape Factors
sc , sγ , sq
B' Nq B' B'
Shape Factors φf > 0 1+( )( ) 1 - 0.4 ( ) 1 +( tanφf)
sc , s γ , s q L' Nc L' L'
Correction Factor for Location of Water
Depth of Ground Water

Cwγ Cwq
Table, Dw
0 0.5 0.5
Df 0.5 1.0
> (1.5B’ + Df) 1.0 1.0
Step 4: Calculate Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qR)

Determine the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qR) for Strength and
Extreme Event Limit States by multiplying the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn) by
the appropriate resistance factors for the Strength and Extreme Event Limit States
(AASHTO CA Amendments Table 10.5.5.2.2-1). Here the resistance factor (ϕb) is 0.45
for the Strength Limit State because strength values were based on SPT values and 1.0
for the Extreme Event Limit State.
qR = ϕb * qn
qR = 0.45 * 18.3 ksf = 8.2 ksf (Strength Limit State)
qR = 1.0 * 18.3 ksf = 18.3 ksf (Extreme Event Limit State)
Repeat Step 2 through Step 4 for several footing dimensions. Present results in the End
Supports (Abutments) table (see below).
At this stage, the actual footing dimension is assumed to have an eccentricity of zero, (B
= B’ and L = L’). Eccentricity effects are considered in Step 8.

Step 5: Send Preliminary Data to Structure Design

Email the End Supports (Abutments) table to the Structure Designer.
End Supports (Abutments)
Support Number: Abut 1

Foundation Material (Soil or Rock): Soil
Friction Angle or Undrained Shear Strength: 34°
Permissible Settlement (in): 1
Resistance Factor (Strength) – φb: 0.45
Resistance Factor (Seismic) – φb: 1.0
Total Number of B' = 5. 5
Gross Nominal
Effective Footing Permissible Net Contact Factored Gross Nominal
Bearing
No Width Stress (Settlement) Bearing Resistance (Strength)
Resistance
Effective Footing Width, Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance, Permissible Net Contact Stress (Settlement), Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (Strength),
B' (feet) qn (ksf) qpn (ksf) qR (ksf)

1 8 17.2 6.9 7.8
2 10 18.3 6.3 8.2
3 12 19.4 5.8 8.7
4 14 20.4 5.5 9.2
5 16 21.4 5.2 9.6
• Select “Soil” or “Rock” depending on design methodology used.
• Based on L’ =____ ft.

Request that the Structure Designer return the following tables (MTD 4-1 Attachment 4)
with the controlling load combination information:
• Foundation Data
• LRFD Service-I Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination
• LRFD Strength, Construction, and Extreme Event Loads for Controlling Load
Combinations
Step 7: Evaluate Inclination Factors

Nothing to do here. Since axial and shear forces are checked against the available
resistance using effective footing dimensions in the respective directions (i.e. bearing
capacity and sliding), inclination factors were omitted.


Receive and review the design tables (requested in Step 6), the footing design
information, and controlling load confirmation. The physical footing width is 16 feet.
Spread Footing Design Information (from Structure Designer)

Permissible
Finished Bottom of Footing Dimensions (feet)
Settlement
Grade Footing
Support No. under
Elevation Elevation
Footing Dimensions (feet), Footing Dimensions (feet),
B L Service Load
(feet) (feet)
(inches)
Abutment 1 +5.0 0 16.0 64 1
Abutment 2 +5.0 0 16.0 64 1
LRFD Service-1 Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination

(from Structure Designer)
Total Load Permanent Load
Support PTotal PPerm
Location Net MX MY VX VY MX MY VX VY
Net
(kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips)
(kips)
Abutment 1 2668 6058 N/A N/A 888 2338 3558 N/A N/A 686
Abutment 2 2668 6058 N/A N/A 888 2338 3558 N/A N/A 686
Note: PTotal Net is provided in the table above, however, for calculating eccentricity PTotal
Gross is required. The Geoprofessional will need to ask for this information in addition to
the MTD tables.

LRFD Strength and Extreme Event Loads for Controlling Load Combination
Provided by Structure Designer
Strength Limit State Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group) (Controlling Group)
Support Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group),
Strength Limit State (Controlling Group),
Extreme Event Limit State (Controlling Group),
Extreme Event Limit State Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group),
Extreme Event Limit State
Extreme Event Limit State
PTotal PTotal
Location MX MY VX VY MX MY VX VY
Gross Gross
(kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips) (kip-ft) (kip-ft) (kips) (kips)
(kips) (kips)
Abutment 1 3058 11158 N/A N/A 1068 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Abutment 2 3058 11158 N/A N/A 1068 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1. Eccentricity Limits Check
For Service Limit State:

• Maximum eccentricity is not to exceed B/6 for footings on soil where B is the actual
footing width.
• Eccentricity, ey = Mx / PTotal, Gross
Where:
ey= eccentricity
Mx = factored bending moment
PTotal, Gross = total gross factored axial force
(In the future, SD will provide PTotal, Gross for the Service-I Limit State but until MTD
4-1 is updated, the Geoprofessional will need to request PTotal, Gross from SD).

Calculations:
ey = Mx / PTotal, Gross
ey = 6058 kips-ft / 2888 kips = 2.1 ft
B / 6 = 16 ft / 6 = 2.7 ft (maximum allowed eccentricity for soil)
ey < B/6 (2.1 ft < 2.7 ft) for footing on soil, O.K.
No need to check eccentricity limits under Extreme Event Limit State load
combinations because loads were not provided by Structure Design. If loads were
provided then we would repeat the above calculations to check eccentricity for the
Extreme Event Limit State.
2. Calculate the Permissible Net Contact Stress after using loads and moments to
determine the eccentricity and the effective footing dimensions. Verify that the calculated
Permissible Net Contact Stress is greater than or equal to the Net Uniform Bearing
Stress (qpn ≥ qn,u).
Calculate B’ for Service I Limit State:
B’ = B – 2 * ey
B’ = 16 ft – 2 * 2.1 ft = 11.8 ft
qnu = PTotal, Net / (B’ * L’) = 2668 kips / (11.8 ft * 64 ft) = 3.5 ksf (Demand)
qpn = 5.9 ksf (repeat Step 2 to calculate qpn with B’ = 11.8 ft) (Stress required to
induce 1” settlement)
qpn > qn,u (5.9 ksf > 3.5 ksf) O.K.
3. Calculate the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance for Strength Limit State
(and Extreme Event Limit State, if applicable) using loads, moments, and
corresponding effective footing dimensions. Verify that the calculated Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing Resistance is greater than or equal to the Gross Uniform Bearing
Stress (qR ≥ qg,u).
Calculate B’ for Strength Limit State: B’ = B – 2 * ey
Where:
ey = Mx / PTotal Gross

B’ = B – 2 * Mx / PTotal Gross
B’ = 16 ft – 2 * 11158 kips-ft / 3058 kips = 8.7 ft
Calculate qg,u and qR:
Nγq = 35.6 (repeat Step 3 to calculate Nγq with Df / B’ = 5.0/8.7 ft =0.57)
qg,u = PTotal Gross / (B’ * L’) = 3058 kips / (8.7 ft * 64 ft) =5.5 ksf (Demand)
qR = ϕb * 0.5 * γ' * B’ * Nγq * sγ * Cwγ
= 0.45 * 0.5 * .120 kcf * 8.7 ft * 35.6 * (1 – 0.4 * (8.7 ft / 64 ft)) * 1 = 7.9 ksf (Resistance)
qR > qg,u (7.9 ksf > 5.5 ksf) O.K.
If any of the above design criteria are not met, inform the Structure Designer.

The global stability was determined using the Slide program. The calculated resistance
factors for global stability met the current AASHTO LRFD criteria for both the Service-I
(static) Limit State, φ = 0.65 (equivalent to a factor of safety ~ 1.5 for Slide), as well as
the Extreme Event (pseudo-static) Limit State, φ = 0.9 (equivalent to a factor of safety ~
1.1 for Slide).
Step 10: Design Approval and Reporting

Email the Structure Designer to communicate design approval. Prepare the Foundation
Report as per Foundation Reports for Bridges. The required tables are presented below
with values generated from this example (abutment 1 only).

Foundation Design Recommendations for Spread Footing

(after MTD 4-1, Attachment 5, Table 2)
Strength or Extreme
Footing Size Service Limit Construction Event Limit
(feet) State Limit State State
Minimum Total
,
Bottom of (ϕb=0.45) (ϕb=1.0)

Permissible Net Contact Stress (ksf)
Footing Permissible Factored Factored

Support Footing Permissible
, Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (ksf) , Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (ksf)
Embedment Support
Location Elevation Net Contact Gross Gross
Depth Settlement
(feet) Stress Nominal Nominal
B L (feet) (inches)
(ksf) Bearing Bearing
Resistance Resistance
(ksf) (ksf)
5.9 7.9
Abutment 1 16 64 0 5 1.0 N/A
(B’ = 11.8 ft) (B’ = 8.7 ft)
__ __
Abutment 2 __ __ __ __ __ N/A
(B’ = __) (B’ = __)
• Abutment 2 not completed in this example
Spread Footing Data Table

Service Strength/Construction Extreme Event

Permissible Net Factored Gross Nominal Factored Gross Nominal
Support
Contact Stress Bearing Resistance Bearing Resistance
Location
(Settlement) (ϕb=0.45) (ϕb=1.0)
(ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
Abutment 1 5.9 7.9 N/A
Abutment 2 __ __ N/A
• Abutment 2 not completed in this example

Appendix 2: Shallow Foundation Design Example for Intermediate Bridge Support
A spread footing is designed for a single column bent supported by soil below level
ground. The Geoprofessional has received the foundation report request memorandum,
the Foundation Data Table, the General Plan, the Foundation Plan, and has completed
the field investigation.
Foundation Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 1)

Bottom of Estimated Footing Permissible
Finished Grade Approximate Ratio
Support Footing Dimensions (feet) Settlement under
Elevation of Permanent/Total
No. Elevation Service-I Load
(feet) Estimated Footing Dimensions (feet), Estimated Footing Dimensions (feet),
Service I Load
(feet) B L (inches)
Bent 2 48.5 40.0 22 22 1.0
Information from Site Investigation:
• Soil Identification: Silty Sand (SM) with Gravel; well-graded sand; some silt; little fine
gravel.
• Apparent Density: Dense and very dense based on Standard Penetration Test
(SPT).
• Groundwater Elevation = 10 ft.

The site investigation shows the footing location is acceptable. There are no known
geologic hazards that would preclude the use of shallow foundations.
settlement of 1 inch for the footing dimensions provided by the Structure Designer in the
Foundation Data Table, as well as for a range of other footing widths and lengths.
The Hough formula (shown below) is used to calculate settlement as the cohesionless
soil is loaded from the proposed footing. The apparent density of the soil varies with
depth, therefore multiple layers are used to calculate the total settlement.

where:
Se = total elastic settlement
n = number of soil layers within zone of stress influence of the footing
∆Hi = elastic settlement of layer i
Hc = initial thickness of layer i (maximum 10 ft per AASHTO C10.6.2.4.2)
C’ = bearing capacity index (from AASHTO Figure 10.6.2.4.2-1)
σ’o = initial vertical effective stress at midpoint of layer i
∆σ’v = increase in effective vertical stress at midpoint of layer i
Bearing Capacity Index

(per AASHTO, Figure 10.6.2.4.2-1)
• N1 shall be taken as N160 (SPT blow

count corrected for both overburden
and hammer efficiency).

To calculate the permissible settlement of 1 inch first pick a depth of influence based on
the footing dimensions and soil types. For this example, the depth of influence is
assumed to be three times the footing width (3B = 66 feet). The depth of influence should
be increased when significant settlement occurs in the lower layers.
The increase in effective vertical stress (∆σ’v) is calculated by projecting an equivalent

footing area at the midpoint of each layer assuming a 1:2 (H:V) pressure distribution
(Figure 1).
The distributed stress used to determine the total settlement is shown in the figure below.
In this example, a 2710-kip load produced 1 inch of settlement (Table 1).
Figure 1: Elevation View Showing Pressure Distribution Used for Estimating Settlement

Table 1: Determining Settlement using Hough Method

(Footing Size, B x L = 22 feet x 22 feet)
(Applied Load = 2710 kips)
Increase in
Effective Effective Estimated Projected
Bottom of Depth SPT Effective
Layer
Layer
Below Unit Wt. Overburden Depth to Corrected Bearing Equivalent
Vertical σ' o+∆σ'v Layer Cumulative
Layer No. Thickness Pressure at mid-layer Capacity Footing Area at Sett. Settlement
Elevation Footing γ’ (pcf) Blow Count Stress at Mid-
(feet)
Hi (feet)
(feet)
Mid-Layer (feet)
N160
Index Mid-Layer
Layer Δσ'v σ' o (inches) Se (inches)
σ’o (ksf) C’ (feet2)
(ksf)
A 40.0 8.5 0.0 125 0.53 4.25 36 - - - - - -
1 30.0 10.0 10.0 125 1.69 5.0 38 119 729 3.7 3.2 .51 .51
2 20.0 10.0 20.0 125 2.94 15.0 32 102 1369 2.0 1.7 .26 .77
3 10.0 10.0 30.0 125 4.19 25.0 40 125 2209 1.2 1.3 .11 .88
4 0.0 10.0 40.0 63 5.13 35.0 43 134 3249 0.8 1.2 .06 .94
5 -10.0 10.0 50.0 63 5.76 45.0 37 116 4489 0.6 1.1 .04 .98
6 -20.0 10.0 60.0 63 6.39 55.0 50 156 5929 0.5 1.1 .02 1.00
7 -30.0 10.0 70.0 63 7.02 65.0 60 210 7569 0.4 1.1 .01 1.01
The Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn) is:
qpn = Load (to induce 1” settlement) / Effective Footing Area = 2710 k / (22 ft * 22 ft) =
5.6 ksf
(Note: At this initial stage, the actual footing dimension is assumed to have an
eccentricity of zero, (B = B’ and L = L’)
Step 3: Calculate Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn)

For cohesionless soils: qn = (γ * Df * Nq * sq * Cwq) + (0.5 * γ * B’ * Nγ * sγ * Cwγ)
where:
γ = total unit weight of soil
Df = footing embedment depth
B’= effective footing width
Nq and Nγ = bearing capacity factors for footing on level ground
sq and sγ = footing shape correction factors
Cwq and Cwγ = correction factors to account for the location of the groundwater table

Calculations:
For φ=35o, Nq = 33.3 and Nγ = 48.0 (AASHTO figure 10.6.3.1.2a-1)
sq = 1 + (B’/L’ * tan φ) = 1 + (22/22 * tan 35) = 1.7 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
sγ = 1 - 0.4 * (B’/ L’) = 1 – 0.4 * (22/22) = 0.6 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
Cwq = 1.0 and Cwγ = 0.96 for depth to groundwater of 30 ft (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-2
qn = (0.125 kcf * 8.5 * 33.3 * 1.7 * 1.0) + (0.5 * 0.125 kcf * 22 ft * 48.0 * 0.6 * 0.96) = 98.2
ksf
Shape Factors (after AASHTO LRFD 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
Friction Cohesion Term Surcharge Term

Factor Unit Weight Term (sγ)
Angle (sc) (sq)
B'
φf = 0 1 +( ) 1.00 1.00
5L'
Shape Factors
sc , sγ , sq
B' Nq B' B'
φf > 0 1+( )( ) 1 - 0.4 ( ) 1 +( tanφf)
L' Nc L' L'
Correction Factor for Location of Water (after AASHTO LRFD 10.6.3.1.2a-2)

Depth of Ground Water
Table, Dw Cwγ Cwq
0 0.5 0.5
Df 0.5 1.0
>(1.5B' + Df) 1.0 1.0
Step 4: Calculate Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qR)

Determine the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistances (qR) for Strength and
Extreme Event Limit States by multiplying the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn) by
the appropriate resistance factors for the Strength and Extreme Event Limit States
(AASHTO CA Amendments Table 10.5.5.2.2-1). Here the resistance factor (ϕb) is 0.45

for the Strength Limit State because strength values were based on SPT values and 1.0
for the Extreme Limit State.
qR = ϕb * qn
qR = 0.45 * 98.2 ksf = 44.2 ksf (Strength Limit State)
qR = 1.0 * 98.2 ksf = 98.2 ksf (Extreme Event Limit State)
Repeat Steps 2 through 4 for the other footing widths and L/B ratios. Present results in
the Intermediate Supports (Bents) table (see example below).
Notice that the column heading “Effective Footing Width” is a misnomer because the
actual footing width was used in the calculation. Eccentricity effects are considered in
Step 8.

Step 5: Send Preliminary Data to Structure Design

Email the Intermediate Supports (Bents) table to the Structure Designer.
Intermediate Supports (Bents)
Support Number: Bent 2

Foundation Material (Soil or Rock): Soil
Friction Angle or Undrained Shear Strength: 35°
Permissible Settlement (in): 1.0
Resistance Factor (Strength) – φb: 0.45
Resistance Factor (Seismic) – φb: 1.0
Total Number of unique L'/B' =5
5
Total Number of B's per L'/B' =5
5
No Effective Effective Gross Permissible Net Factored Gross Nominal

Footing Footing Nominal Contact Stress Bearing Resistance
Width , Size Bearing (Settlement) ,, qpn (ksf) (Strength) , qR (ksf)
Ratio Resistance
B' (ft)
, L' / B' qn (ksf)
B' (ft) L' / B' qn (ksf) qpn (ksf) qR (ksf)

1 14 1.00
2 18 1.00
3 22 1.00 98.2 5.6 44.2
4 26 1.00
5 30 1.00
1 14 1.25
2 18 1.25
3 22 1.25
4 26 1.25
5 30 1.25
1 14 1.50
2 18 1.50
3 22 1.50
4 26 1.50
5 30 1.50
1 14 1.75
2 18 1.75
3 22 1.75
4 26 1.75
5 30 1.75
1 14 2.00
2 18 2.00
3 22 2.00
4 26 2.00
5 30 2.00


Request that the Structure Designer send the following tables (MTD 4-1 Attachment 4)
with the appropriate load information.
• Foundation Data
• LRFD Service-I Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination
• LRFD Strength, Construction, and Extreme Event Loads for Controlling Load
Combinations
Step 7: Evaluate Inclination Factors

Nothing to do here. Since axial and shear forces are checked against the available
resistance using effective footing dimensions in the respective directions (i.e. bearing
capacity and sliding), inclination factors were omitted.

The Structure Designer sends the following new tables as requested in Step 6. The
physical footing width is 22 feet.
Spread Footing Design Information Provided by the Structure Designer

Footing Dimensions Permissible
Finished Bottom of (feet) Settlement
Grade Footing
Support No. under
Elevation Elevation
Footing Dimensions (feet), Footing Dimensions (feet),
B L Service Load
(feet) (feet)
(inches)
Bent 2 48.5 40.0 22 22 1
LRFD Service-1 Limit State Loads for Controlling Load Combination

Total Load Permanent Load
Support
PTotal PPerm
Location MX MY VX VY MX MY VX VY
(kips) (kips)
Net Net
Bent 2 1287 3697 583 N/A N/A 927 2062 108 N/A N/A

Note: PTotal, Net is provided in the table, however, for calculating eccentricity PTotal,
Gross is required. The Geoprofessional will need to ask for this information in
addition to the MTD tables.
LRFD Strength and Extreme Event Loads for Controlling Load Combination
Strength Limit State Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group) (Controlling Group)
Support Strength Limit State (Controlling Group),

Location PTotal PTotal

Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group), Strength Limit State (Controlling Group),
MX MY VX VY MX MY VX VY
Gross Gross
(kips) (kips)
Bent 2 2287 2260 3140 N/A N/A 1400 10588 10588 398 398
1. Eccentricity Limits Check
For Service Limit State:

• Maximum eccentricity is limited to B/6 for footings on soil. B is the footing width.
• Eccentricity, ey = Mx / PTotal, Gross , ex = My / PTotal, Gross
(ask Structure Designer for the PTotal, Gross for the Service-I Limit State)
Where:
ex,y = eccentricity
Mx,y = factored bending moment
PTotal, Gross = total gross factored axial force

Service Limit State Calculations:

ey = 3697 kips-ft / 1570 kips = 2.4 feet
B / 6 = 22 ft / 6 = 3.7 ft (maximum allowed eccentricity for soil)
e < B/6 (2.4 ft < 3.7 ft) for footing on soil, O.K.
For Extreme Event Limit State:

• Maximum eccentricity is limited to B/2.5 for footings on soil. B is the footing width.
• Eccentricity, ey = Mx / PTotal, Gross
Extreme Event Limit State Calculations:

ey = 10588 kips-ft / 1400 kips = 7.6 feet
B / 2.5 = 22 ft / 2.5 = 8.8 ft (maximum allowed eccentricity for soil)
e < B/2.5 (7.6 ft < 8.8 ft) for footing on soil, O.K.
2. Calculate the Permissible Net Contact stress after using loads and moments to
determine the eccentricity and the effective footing dimensions. Verify that the calculated
Permissible Net Contact Stress is greater than or equal to the Net Uniform Bearing
Stress (qpn ≥ qn,u).
Calculate B’ for Service I Limit State:

B’ = B – 2 * ey
B’ = 22 ft – 2 * 2.4 ft = 17.2 ft
Calculate L’ for Service I Limit State:
L’ = L – 2 * ex
ex = My / PTotal, Gross
e = 583 kips-ft / 1570 kips = 0.37 feet
L’ = 22 ft – 2 * 0.37 ft = 21.3 ft

qn,u = PTotal, Net / (B’ * L’) = 1287 kips / (17.2 ft * 21.3 ft) = 3.5 ksf (Demand)
qpn = 6.2 ksf (repeat Step 2 to calculate qpn with B’ = 17.2 ft and L’ = 21.3 ft)
(Stress
required to induce 1” settlement)
qpn > qn,u (6.2 ksf > 3.5 ksf) O.K.
3. Calculate the Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance for Strength Limit State
(and Extreme Event Limit State, if applicable) using loads, moments, and
corresponding effective footing dimensions. Verify that the calculated Factored Gross
Nominal Bearing Resistance is greater than or equal to the Gross Uniform Bearing
Stress (qR ≥ qg,u ).
Calculate B’ and L’ for Strength Limit State:

• B’ = B – 2 * ey
Where:
B’ = 22 ft – 2 * 2260 kips-ft / 2287 kips = 20.0 ft (this will become the L’)
• L’ = L – 2 * ex
Switch
Where: the B’
ex = My / PTotal Gross and L’
L’ = L – 2 * My / PTotal Gross
L’ = 22 ft – 2 * 3140 kips-ft / 2287 kips = 19.2 ft (this will become the B’)
B’ is the smaller of (B – 2 * ey) and (L – 2 * ex). In this example for the Strength
Limit State design, B’ changed from the longitudinal to the transverse direction.
B’ is 19.2 ft in transverse direction and L’ is 20.0 ft is longitudinal direction.
Calculate qR and qg,u for Strength Limit State:

• qg,u = PTotal Gross / (B’ * L’) = 2287 kips / (19.2 ft * 20.0 ft) = 6.0 ksf (Demand)
• qn = (γ * Df * Nq * sq * Cwq) + (0.5 * γ * B’ * Nγ * sγ * Cwγ)

Calculations:
Nq = 33.3 and Nγ = 48.0 (AASHTO figure 10.6.3.1.2a-1)
sq = 1 + (B’/L’ * tan φ) = 1 + (19.2/20.0 * tan 35) = 1.7 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
sγ = 1 - 0.4 * (B’/ L’) = 1 – 0.4 * (19.2/20.0) = 0.6 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
Cwq = 1.0 and Cwγ = 1.0 for depth to groundwater of 30 ft (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-2)
qn = (0.125 kcf * 8.5 * 33.3 * 1.7 * 1.0) + (0.5 * 0.125 kcf * 19.2 ft * 48.0 * 0.6 * 1.0)
= 94.7 ksf
qR = ϕb * qn = 0.45 * 94.7 ksf = 42.6 ksf (Resistance)
qR > qg,u (42.6 ksf > 6.0 ksf) O.K.
Calculate B’ and L’ for Extreme Event Limit State:
• B’ = B – 2 * ey
Where:
B’ = 22 ft – 2 * 10588 kips-ft / 1400 kips = 6.9 ft
• L’ = L – 2 * ex
Where:
ex = My / PTotal Gross
L’ = L – 2 * My / PTotal Gross
L’ = 22 ft – 2 * 10588 kips-ft / 1400 kips = 6.9 ft
Calculate qR and qg,u for Extreme Event Limit State:
• qg,u = PTotal Gross / (B’ * L’) = 1400 kips / (6.9 ft * 6.9 ft) = 29.4 ksf (Demand)
• qn = (γ * Df * Nq * sq * Cwq) + (0.5 * γ * B’ * Nγ * sγ * Cwγ)

Calculations:
Nq = 33.3 and Nγ = 48.0 (AASHTO figure 10.6.3.1.2a-1)
sq = 1 + (B’/L’ * tan φ) = 1 + (6.9/6.9 * tan 35) = 1.7 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
sγ = 1 - 0.4 * (B’/ L’) = 1 – 0.4 * (6.9/6.9) = 0.6 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)
Cwq = 1.0 and Cwγ = 1.0 for depth to groundwater of 30 ft (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-2)
qn = (0.125 kcf * 8.5 * 33.3 * 1.7 * 1.0) + (0.5 * 0.125 kcf * 6.9 ft * 48.0 * 0.6 * 1.0)
= 72.6 ksf
qR = ϕb * qn = 1.0 * 72.6 ksf = 72.6 ksf (Resistance)
qR > qg,u (72.6 ksf > 29.4 ksf) O.K.

Global stability calculations need not be performed in this example because the footing
is on level ground.
Step 10: Design Approval and Reporting

Email the Structure Designer to communicate design approval. Write the Foundation
Report as per Foundation Reports for Bridges.

Foundation Design Recommendations for Spread Footing

Strength Limit Extreme Event

Footing Service
State Limit State
Size (feet) Limit State
Minimum Total (ϕb=0.45) (ϕb=1.0)
Bottom of
Footing Permissible
Support Footing Factored Factored
Embedment Support Permissible
Location Footing Size (feet), Footing Size (feet),
Elevation Gross Gross
Depth Settlement Net
B L (feet) Nominal Nominal
(feet) (inches) Contact
Bearing Bearing
Stress
Resistance Resistance
(ksf)
(ksf) (ksf)
6.2 42.6
72.6
Bent 2 22 22 40 8.5 1.0 (B’ = 17.2 (B’ = 19.2
(B’ = 6.9 feet)
feet) feet)
Spread Footing Data Table

Service Strength/Construction Extreme Event

Permissible Net Factored Gross Factored Gross
Support
Contact Stress Nominal Bearing Resistance Nominal Bearing Resistance
Location
(Settlement) (ϕb=0.45) (ϕb=1.0)
(ksf) (ksf) (ksf)
Bent 2 6.2 42.6 72.6

GM ShallowFoundations A11y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GM ShallowFoundations A11y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual

Shallow Foundations for Bridges

Geotechnical Services provides the Structure Designer with a foundation report

Page 1 of 34 February 2021

The Structure Designer will:

The exploration plan should include:

Page 2 of 34 February 2021

Page 3 of 34 February 2021

Shallow foundations founded on rock must be designed using procedures developed

Page 4 of 34 February 2021

Design Information and Communication

(feet) (inches) Service-I Load*

Abut 1 214.0 206.0 16 72 1 0.87

Bent 2 199.0 192.0 18 18 1 0.85

Abut 3 214.0 206.0 16 72 1 0.87

Step 1: Initial Evaluation of Shallow Foundation

Page 5 of 34 February 2021

Step 3: Calculate the Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance

Step 5: Send Preliminary Design Data to Structure Design

See Appendix 1 and 2 for examples of these tables.

Step 6: Request Design Data from Structure Design

Page 6 of 34 February 2021

Step 7: Evaluate Inclination Factors (if omitted, then go to Step 8)

Unusual column geometry or loading configurations may require consideration be given

Step 8: Verify the Shallow Foundation Design

Page 7 of 34 February 2021

Step 9: Global Stability Check

Step 10: Reporting

Page 8 of 34 February 2021

Appendix 1: Shallow Foundation Design Example (Bridge Abutment)

A spread footing is to be designed for an abutment on a soil slope. The Geoprofessional

Foundation Data Table (MTD 4-1, Attachment 1)

Information from Site Investigation:

Step 1: Initial Evaluation of Shallow Foundation

Page 9 of 34 February 2021

Bearing Capacity Index

• N1 shall be taken as N160 (SPT blow

Page 10 of 34 February 2021

The increase in effective vertical stress (∆σ’v) is determined by projecting an equivalent

Assume isolated footing with no abutment backwall

Page 11 of 34 February 2021

Table 1: Calculating Settlement using the Hough Method

A 0.0 5.0 0.0 125 - - - - - - - - -

The Permissible Net Contact Stress (qpn) is:

Step 3: Calculate Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance (qn)

For cohesionless soils: qn = 0.5 * γ * B’ * Nγq * sγ * Cwγ

γ = total unit weight of soil

B’= effective footing width

Nγq = modified bearing capacity factor for footing on/near a slope

sγ = footing shape correction factor

Page 12 of 34 February 2021

Nγq = 32.5 (AASHTO figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2)

sγ = 1 - 0.4(B’ / L’) = 1 – 0.4(10/64) = 0.94 (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-3)

Cwγ =1.0 (depth to groundwater is 100 ft) (AASHTO table 10.6.3.1.2a-2)

qn = 0.5 * 120 pcf * 10 ft * 32.5 * 0.94 * 1.0 = 18.3 ksf

Modified Bearing Capacity Factor Nγq for Cohesionless Soil

AASHTO Figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2

Inclination of Slope = 26.5o

Nγq -φf-30 Nγq-φf-34 Nγq -φf-40

1 27.9 53.4 92.0

Page 13 of 34 February 2021

Shape Factors (after AASHTO LRFD 10.6.3.1.2a)

Friction Cohesion Term Surcharge Term